scissors, pants, jeans... are they really uncountable nouns?

Hello all!
My grammar book says that the above mentioned words are uncountable. I believe to have heard some people using numbers with them.The sentences "I need three scissors" or "I bought two pants" don't sound odd to me. Are they really wrong?
Saying "I bought two pairs of pants" instead of "two pants" sounds somewhat awkward to me. Is this just me or is my grammar book a little out of touch with real life English?

Thanks for your answers.
Going through the older threads wouldn't have helped me as I was not asking if it's possible to say "a pants" which obviously isn't. I wanted to know if I could use plural numbers with "pants" without having to say "pairs of" but I take it it doesn't work either.
So, on the bright side, I now know that I have a good grammar book ;-)

I dont think these words are uncountable nouns, but simply plural nouns with specific usage once they are always "in twos".
Also I'll risk saying that informally people use the simpler forms:
three scissors,
in his trousers...
if we google these words, there will be varied options...http://www.macmillandictionary.com

I can imagine saying "three scissors" in an informal conversation with a friend, such as "I went to the office supply store and picked up three scissors for my classroom". I wouldn't use it in any formal or business setting, though. On the other hand, I can't imagine saying "I picked up three pants". The "pairs of" is so ingrained in me that it would come out automatically.

Maria Ovidia said:

in his trousers...

Click to expand...

This would only be a single pair of pants to me. I can't imagine a context where it would be used with a number, as in "in his three trousers".

Treasury decisions under customs and other laws‎ - Page 239United States. Dept. of the Treasury (1927).... return for duty leather cases when fitted with three scissors and the cases are of substantial and durable quality as leather cases permanently fitted ...
(There are more recent examples from the US, but this was the most august.)
​

Sets of three scissors are sold in both the UK and the US. Aside from these [...]

Click to expand...

Cagey, you can find pants & jeans examples too ...

Whether your girlfriend is pressuring you to go on a shopping spree or you feel the urge to tailor your clothes to today's look, there's no need to panic; all you'll need this winter are three shirts and three pants, and you'll have a blast heating up any room. (source)

Whether your girlfriend is pressuring you to go on a shopping spree or you feel the urge to tailor your clothes to today's look, there's no need to panic; all you'll need this winter are three shirts and three pants, and you'll have a blast heating up any room. (source)

Having said all that, I have worked at a job in which scissors were a tool of the trade. As I remember it, we usually talked about "my scissors", but "a new pair of scissors". I'm not certain whether we would say "we need more scissors [multiple]" or "we need more pairs of scissors." I tend to think we said the former.

Three scissors sounds very weird to me. I'm not sure if that helps things or makes them even more confusing.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify my comment, I would not normally say "there are three scissors in the drawer". It does sound odd to me, too.

I can imagine it, however, if you are casually speaking about picking up multiple pairs at the store, as in "I picked up five rulers, two staplers and three scissors to replace the ones stolen from the office". It would not be correct English, in my opinion, but I can definitely imagine hearing it and even saying it, if I wasn't thinking about what I was saying. "Pairs of scissors" sounds better to me but I think it's a slip that's not unheard of, whereas "where are my three pants" would sound so odd as to be (nearly) unheard of to me.

Having said all that, I have worked at a job in which scissors were a tool of the trade. As I remember it, we usually talked about "my scissors", but "a new pair of scissors". I'm not certain whether we would say "we need more scissors [multiple]" or "we need more pairs of scissors." I tend to think we said the former.

Click to expand...

The source that you quote there, though, is very elliptical (presumably to save space). In the bit you quote there we have "School re-opened" "child found back door" "head teacher found" all with no articles for example.

I'm not saying you don't find it - but I would find it odd to hear someone actually say "could you go and fetch me three scissors please" - well as equally strange as "be sure to bring at least three trousers with you" etc.

That said - I don't find "we need more scissors" as strange, just colloquial.

Quote as many examples from Google as you feel like but that doesn't convince me it sounds normal nor rewires my brain to treat it as acceptable, I agree with Loob / timepac.
If we were researching usage statistics then maybe, but this is about what we personally feel is correct / incorrect as native speakers on a language forum, I don't see the relevance of quoting articles in this way.

If the lady asked me what I was packing for our trip and I wanted to give a quick rundown, I might say, "I've packed five shirts, three pants, seven underwear, and five pairs of socks." I would probably always say "pairs" with socks because those little guys are separable, unlike pants which are sewn into loyalty.

Interesting... I didn't think my question would kick off such an extensive debate.

Sound shift: I see your point. Nevertheless they do appear in my grammar book in the "uncountable nouns" section just as they do in this explanation.

Plural uncountable nouns

Some uncountable nouns are plural. They have no singular forms with the same meaning, and cannot be used with numbers. Examples are: trousers, jeans, pyjamas, pants, scissors, spectacles, glasses, arms, goods, customs, groceries, clothes and thanks

Click to expand...

I guess they treat them like uncountables because you can't say *one pant nor *three pants without "the detour" of using apair of (as I have just learnt) just as you can't say *one bread or *two breads without using a loaf of, the only difference being that scissors/pants/jeans... are plural by nature.

I was just asking because I was anticipating that my students would ask the same question when we get to the next unit because in German we can also say "a pair of trousers/pants/jeans..." but we leave it out more often and I guess that's why it sounded more natural to me without it.

I guess they treat them like uncountables because you can't say *one pant nor *three pants without "the detour" of using apair of (as I have just learnt) just as you can't say *one bread or *two breads without using a loaf of, the only difference being that scissors/pants/jeans... are plural by nature.

Click to expand...

You can correctly say "one bread" or "two breads" in my neck of the woods. Here are two examples.

But it's well known when you're referring to different sub-types then it is possible to use numbers in some circumstances.

Like going into a cheese shop (where there are obviously lots of types of cheese) and saying "I'll have 5 cheeses today" (you're referring to different types) so it's ok, but it's still an uncountable noun insofar as the function when not referring to different types (this goes for the 'bread' example 2 posts above as well).

You might say "a rye bread", and refer to a specific, whatwouldyoucallit, a stick of it, this is again, normal, it's in an identifiable countable form.

@pickarooney, the 'default' word to use isn't 'loaf', it's usually the most common, but like the jeans/scissors example, where the default word is 'pair' to use with it, this isn't the same with loaf so you don't have to use 'loaf' with ciabatta, baguette, garlic bread etc.

However, like many sneaky uncountable nouns, there is an exception: if you are speaking of multiple kinds of milk, it can be pluralized, as in “Sheep, cows and goats give different-flavored milks.” This is generally considered a correct usage of the word, even though the noun is usually considered uncountable. If you are going to pluralize an uncountable noun, be certain you are referring to different varieties of one thing rather than multiple quantities of it.

Click to expand...

And to sum up the idea of uncountable nouns in English with:

More simply put, they are uncountable because we can’t understand the amount implied without further information. However, as with most rules of English grammar, the exceptions and complications immediately creep in.

Click to expand...

So if although there are exceptions, if you can't gauge a quantity when adding numbers to it (again I'm referring to the 'bread' example now) then it's uncountable, and referring to different types is a well-known exception to many many uncountable nouns.

Just from a logical point of view, if we assume that the word scissors on its own always refers to a pair of scissors. Wouldn't it be accurate to say that one pair of scissors consists of two scissors?

I have never heard anyone ask "Have you seen the pair of scissors?" I've only heard "Have you seen the scissors? I thought I put them down on the table." In answer, I've only heard "The scissors are in the drawer."

I am not quite sure if this on topic and I hated to bring it up earlier, but I'll give it a try.

I often say "pair" instead of "pairs" for all these things, as in "three pair of pants". I don't know whether it is colloquial or not. I wouldn't write it that way but it sounds perfectly natural to say "pair", especially if I am talking quickly.

Hi James, that's quite common over here as well.
It's typical of our Yorkshire dialect, though through reality TV when used with pants / jeans I've heard many other people say it.
It's not common where I'm from and I'd never say it (i.e. talking without thinking), it'd be one of those identifiable characteristics that make your mind instantly go 'Not from round here', but I don't have a problem with it at all, I didn't know it was also in the US actually.

I am not quite sure if this on topic and I hated to bring it up earlier, but I'll give it a try.

I often say "pair" instead of "pairs" for all these things, as in "three pair of pants". I don't know whether it is colloquial or not. I wouldn't write it that way but it sounds perfectly natural to say "pair", especially if I am talking quickly.

I am not quite sure if this on topic and I hated to bring it up earlier, but I'll give it a try.

I often say "pair" instead of "pairs" for all these things, as in "three pair of pants". I don't know whether it is colloquial or not. I wouldn't write it that way but it sounds perfectly natural to say "pair", especially if I am talking quickly.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it - but it sounds believable.

It is something to do with nouns of quantity? I could also image "5 pound of butter", "3 acre of land", "2 pint of beer" - although again I wouldn't say them personally. In terms of our currency "pound" some people would also say "it cost 5 pound" etc.

In terms of our currency "pound" some people would also say "it cost 5 pound" etc.

Click to expand...

Hi timepac, wouldn't you?

I'm not aware of anyone that uses the plural 'pound' when talking about currency. I've met a fair few people as well!
If you came home with a book that cost £7 and someone asked you how much it was, would you say "It cost me seven pounds." ?
Or if you got a cheque for Christmas for £100 would you say "I got a 100 pounds cheque off Mary." (or 'A cheque for 100 pounds') ?

In my area we use 'quid' more than we use pound (in colloquial speech), that's never pluralised either.

I'm not aware of anyone that uses the plural 'pound' when talking about currency. I've met a fair few people as well!
If you came home with a book that cost £7 and someone asked you how much it was, would you say "It cost me seven pounds." ?
Or if you got a cheque for Christmas for £100 would you say "I got a 100 pounds cheque off Mary." (or 'A cheque for 100 pounds') ?

In my area we use 'quid' more than we use pound (in colloquial speech), that's never pluralised either.

Whether your girlfriend is pressuring you to go on a shopping spree or you feel the urge to tailor your clothes to today's look, there's no need to panic; all you'll need this winter are three shirts and three pants, and you'll have a blast heating up any room. (source)

Of course it is, excuse my relapse.
Hmm, interesting about the plural pound, I can't actually remember how other people say it now, I'll go and watch some 'Cash in the attic' style shows and see what they say (I'd rather die ) but it's made me interested in doing a bit of research about it.

[Edit]:

Ok it seems some people draw a comparison with 'foot' as in "5 foot 10 inches" and use it in the singular and don't use the plural 'feet' and there are a few people who insist both forms are correct.
Some people have raised questions and it seems to be common that BBC readers (on TV and Radio are accustomed to using the singular) though I was not able to find any examples of this, just of people's questions about it (though BBC Learn English uses examples to the contrary).

Isn't this interesting?
What about shop-assistant speak: 'That's a nice trouser, sir' ?

Click to expand...

Shop-assistant or buyer, those who deal in varieties of these things as a matter of course seem to be happy talking about a style of them in the singular. This seems to sound familiar with trouser and jean, but not pant and scissor.

Here is an example of the singular trouser.

This straight leg trouser has a very clean finish in order to make this an easy to wear style this will allow you to dress this trouser up as much as you like wear with our printed tops to create a contemporary look this trouser is available in black and brown to make this an easy style to go with any of this seasons coloursBlame attribution
​

I have never heard anyone ask "Have you seen the pair of scissors?" I've only heard "Have you seen the scissors? I thought I put them down on the table." In answer, I've only heard "The scissors are in the drawer."

If the lady asked me what I was packing for our trip and I wanted to give a quick rundown, I might say, "I've packed five shirts, three pants, seven underwear, and five pairs of socks." I would probably always say "pairs" with socks because those little guys are separable, unlike pants which are sewn into loyalty.

Click to expand...

But it'd be wrong to say they to refer trousers because they are sewn into loyalty and it is better to say it.